Advanced Breast Cancer Now More Common in Younger Women

I seriously wonder about the affects of the birth control pill on the younger population.  Like all meds, I'm just waiting for the day the medical community says... ooops....looks like it wasn't good for you.  Sort of like HRT.  Sigh....who knows....

My sister and I were both dx with BC, er/pr+.  No other women in our family have been dx, even going back several generations on both sides. The one thing we have in common is that we both took BC pills in the mid 70s when the dose was much higher than today.  I posted this story on my facebook wall as I have lost 3 friends to bc in the past 6months......and 3 others have been dx.  most people blame it on environmental toxins, hormones in food, etc.  Right now, they dont know - so im not discounting anything.  I think we need to look at the whole picture here.

I so agree edwards. I am 64, and obesity in young women is very shocking to me. VERY few children and young adults were fat when I was a child and young adult. It has really become an epideic over the last 20 years. I also believe, as Shayne indicated, hormones in food, birth control pills and HRT are contributing factors. I was 63 at dx. I took bc pills for about 5 years total and never took HRT. I have a family history, but am not BRCA+. However, we know that the two greatest factors involved in getting bc are being a woman and over 60. It's very mysterious why the younger women are experiencing such an increase in the disease.

One of the first personal stories I came across after being diagnosed is that of Stephanie Larue.  In 2005, when she was just 30 years old, she found a lump in her breast and went right to her doctor because she feared it was breast cancer.  He told her that it was "just" mastitis and that she was too young to have breast cancer.  He sent her home with antibiotics.

The lump got bigger.

She went to another doctor who told her that it was just some sort of breast infection.  Again, she brought up her fear of breast cancer and requested tests.  He told her it wasn't necessary; she was too young for breast cancer.  She questioned that it was mastitis because she had no children and he told her that, while it would be rare, it was still possible.  He, also, sent her home with antibiotics and a pat on the head. 

The lump continued to grow. 

Every doctor she went to told her the same thing; she was too young for breast cancer, so they weren't going to sent her for any tests.  Finally, she found a doctor who - reluctantly - agreed to refer her for a complete diagnostic workup.  He told her that - like the other doctors she'd seen - she was too young to have breast cancer, but if the results of the diagnostic workup - which he fully expected to be negative - would help her "relax", then he would do it.

[I can just about hear the patronizing tone myself.]

Well... surprise!  Not only did she have breast cancer, but it had already spread to her bones.  She was given a year to live.

So, here was a young woman, trying desperately to be proactive about her health, running up against a multitude of roadblocks because of the mistaken belief that youth protects a woman against developing breast cancer.  Hello?  She was a WOMAN.  She had BREASTS.  She had a LUMP in her breast.  There should have been an immediate diagnostic workup.  And although no one will ever really know, perhaps - if her first doctor had taken her concerns seriously - she may not have been Stage IV when she was, finally, diagnosed.

Stephanie Larue is still alive, although she is back in treatment.  She's become a big advocate for the need to screen younger women and take their concerns seriously when they present with a lump.  We can't afford to discriminate against young women where this disease is concerned because, yes, they can get breast cancer too and, unfortunately, it tends to be more agressive in young women.  Every lump deserves proper investigation.   Age should not even factor into it.

My friend was 33 and for some reason, her gyn ordered her a mammo on her yearly visit.  No family history.  No lump. No symptoms.  Turned out she had ovarian and invasive breast cancer.  2 years later after she was given a clean bill of health, after chemo and surgeries....it came back in her lymphs.  She died a year later.  But she had that extra time with her two young boys.  Im sure she was grateful for that.

I wonder when a 20 something year old man goes in with a lump in his testicles if he is also turned away from testing?

My gyn in Wisconsin had breast cancer at 31.  She was lucky that as an MD, they took her seriously.  She had bx mx and chemo and is still here and finally retired last year...in her 60s and doing volunteer surgeries, etc. in 3rd world areas.

No one took me seriously since I had no lump and nothing picked up my "mass" till they finally did the MRI.  I was a month shy of 50.  I wonder how well they'd have listened if I was, say, 42...

I think the difference between men and testicle cancer is most of these cancers show up in the younger set while traditionally, BC showed up in the older set....clearly a lot is changing.

There is a lot of talk about how awareness and mammography doesn't save lives.  I am confused of late, as I just came back from a country where 40% of women are initially diagnosed Stage IV.  Here, 40% are initially diagnosed Stage I.  It is hard for me to believe this country just has different genes and environment. I think the answers to all these questions are far from being definitive.

I started getting screened before 37 because I had very lumpy breasts.  I would never have done breast self exam if I hadn't been alerted to take care of my dense breasts.  Mammography missed my lump, but my hand didn't, and that was indirectly thanks to the screening.  I was diagnosed at 39.  I only had one doctor who thought it was worth pushing for mammography before I was 40.

I was diagnosed at age 40 and waited an extra month or so for my mammogram despite having a palpable lump that was even visible to me when I lay on my back or raised my arms above my head (I had a little dent).  Found the lump two months after my 40th birthday purely by accident (although I wonder how the thing hadn't jumped up and bit me at that point).  That was June.  Mammogram was in August.  I was diagnosed at the end of Sept and things moved pretty quickly after that.  My BS said the mass had been there a while, so it is highly likely it was there in my 30's.  But before all that, my family doctor told me it was likely a fibroadenoma, and the BS kept saying you're so young. (I realize now that I'm not that young when it comes to BC).  I was consistently the youngest person in my chemo unit, even at that age.

When I was in my 30's I went to my then doctor with an inexplicable rash on my unaffected breast that would not go away no matter what.  I told her at the time that while I had no immediate family members with BC, I had a great-aunt that had BC and I was somewhat concerned.  My mother had a breast biopsy in the past for calcifications and was monitored for a while but thankfully nothing more.  I can't even remember if the doctor examined me.  She sent me away with a tube of cream and told I was too young for breast cancer.  I can't help but wonder if I'd been sent to be checked out, that they might have found my tumour in its infancy.  All speculation of course, but still. 

I was told I could maybe start getting mammograms at age 40 because of the extended family history and breast issues within the family in general, like cysts and such.  I was not considered "high risk" by the criteria.  I never got to my first regular mammogram, my first was diagnostic. I had no clue at the time that younger women got BC because that's what I had been told.  I knew no one. So much for awareness.

Some of the increase in stats can be explained with the effectiveness of diagnostic tests and maybe the increase in awareness.  Some, but not all.  And the hormone related stuff can't explain those who are triple negative or Her2+ does it?